structural error doctrine

In the mid-1980s, Ellis E. Neder, Jr., an attorney and real estate developer in Jacksonville, Florida, engaged in real estate transactions financed by fraudulently obtained bank loans. Between 1984 and 1986, Neder purchased 12 parcels of land using shell corporations set up by his attorneys and then immediately resold the land at much higher prices to limited partnerships that he controlled. Using inflated appraisals, Neder secured bank loans that typically amounted to 70% to 75% of the inflated resale price of the land. In so doing, he concealed from lenders that he controlled the shell corporations, that he had purchased the land at prices substantially lower than the inflated resale prices, and that the limited partnerships had not made substantial down payments as represented. Neder also engaged in schemes involving land development fraud. In 1985, he obtained a $4,150,000 construction loan to build condominiums on a project known as Cedar Creek by falsely representing that he had made advance sales of 20 condominium units. He employed a similar scheme to obtain a second construction loan of $5,400,000. Neder also obtained a consolidated $14 million land acquisition and development loan for a project known as Reddie Point, submitting numerous requests based on false invoices and obtaining almost $3 million unrelated to any work actually performed. Neder was indicted on 9 counts of mail fraud, 9 counts of wire fraud, 12 counts of bank fraud, and 2 counts of filing a false income tax return. The fraud counts charged Neder with devising and executing the schemes to defraud lenders in connection with land acquisition and development loans totaling over $40 million. The tax counts charged Neder with filing false statements of income on his tax returns, failing to report more than $1 million in income for 1985 and more than $4 million in income for 1986. At trial, the District Court instructed the jury that it need not consider the materiality of any false statements on the tax offenses and that the question of materiality was not for the jury to decide. The court gave a similar instruction on bank fraud and subsequently found that the evidence established the materiality of all the false statements at issue. In instructing the jury on mail fraud and wire fraud, the District Court did not include materiality as an element of either offense. The jury convicted Neder of the fraud and tax offenses, and he was sentenced to 147 months' imprisonment, 5 years' supervised release, and $25 million in restitution. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the conviction. It held that the District Court erred in failing to submit the materiality element of the tax offense to the jury but concluded that the error was subject to harmless-error analysis and was harmless. The Court of Appeals also held that materiality is not an element of the mail fraud, wire fraud, and bank fraud statutes. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve conflicts among the Courts of Appeals.